UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
[date stamp:] SEP 24 2002
___________________________________ BARBARA SCHWARZ ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 00-2758(JDB) v. ) ) FEDERAL BUREAU OF ) INVESTIGATION, et al., ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________)
In this case under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA"), plaintiff names the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and 47 of its subdivisions, the Office of Information and Privacy ofthe Department of Justice,1 the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), and the Department of the Army and 19 of its subdivisions. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On review of the complaint, the motion, plaintiff's opposition, and the applicable law, including decisions in previous cases filed by plaintiff in this Court, the motion will be granted.
I. The Complaint
This is one of many cases related to plaintiff's efforts to obtain information about herself and Mark C. Rathbun. The premise of plaintiff's crusade in this and other FOIA cases is that Mark Rathbun has been illegally convicted of having raped and murdered her, that she is his "relief witness," and that his location in a federal prison is being concealed as part of a German Nazi conspiracy that infects many levels of the federal government.2 The claims against the subdivisions of the Department of Justice relate to FOIA requests mailed by plaintiff in June, July, and August, 2000. The claim against the CIA involves a FOIA request plaintiff mailed on June 15, 2000. Her claim against the Department of the Army and its subdivisions involves requests she mailed on October 8, 1999, and July 24, 2000.3
A. The Claims against FBI OfficesPlaintiff mailed identical FOIA requests to nine FBI field offices on June 7, 2000,4 to eleven different FBI field offices on July 13, 2000,5 and to 25 additional FBI field offices on August 7, 2000.6 The requests were for information regarding herself (either as Schwarz or Schwartz), Mark C. Rathbun (de Rothschild), and Mark's parents Claude and Elizabeth Rathbun (de Rothschild). Plaintiff asked whether Rathbun, his attorneys or his family's attorneys, or an independent or special counsel had contacted the field office for records regarding plaintiff or her FOIA litigation. Although plaintiff's primary interest is in Rathbun, she also requested information about L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. She asserts that the FBI "persecuted" Hubbard "most of his life, after FBI bought lies from German Nazis that he would be no honorable man." See, e.g., Compl. at 13. Plaintiff identified specific indices in which she asked that each search be made, and requested all public records on the individuals mentioned and a search declaration from each office. She provided a certification of her identity and authorized the field offices to provide any records on her to Rathbun, his family, their attorneys, or an independent or special counsel.
Plaintiff received varying responses from the offices. Generally the response was to ask her to provide privacy waivers from individuals other than herself, and to inform her that the office had no responsive records and that no inquiries or subpoenas had been received from any independent or special counsel. Some offices advised plaintiff that FBI headquarters has records on L. Ron Hubbard, after plaintiff informed them that he had been declared dead.7
Some offices described the records systems that had been searched, prompting plaintiff to complain that the offices had failed to search other records systems. The Pittsburgh office, defendant 7, told plaintiff that it had records of a case she had filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, but did not produce those records. Compl. at 19. This response caused plaintiff to complain that the office should have found records of her litigation in Utah and the District of Columbia, and that other offices should have located the records of these cases and thus had not conducted adequate searches. E.g., FBI Cincinnati, defendant 19, and FBI San Francisco, defendant 36. Compl. at 88.8 Plaintiff objects that she was not provided "search declarations" and that the offices that located no records on her did not tell her which names had been searched.
Plaintiff's June 15, 2000, request to the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, defendant 48, was specifically for records generated in connection with appeals on a previous FOIA request and plaintiff's litigation in West Virginia, the Fourth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. She asked also whether that office had received inquiries or subpoenas for records of her prior FOIA litigation from Rathbun's or his family's attorneys or the independent or special counsel. Compl. at 112-13. An official of this office responded with what plaintiff claims is a deliberate misconstruction of her request9 and a referral to headquarters for processing.
Plaintiff's administrative appeals from the various responses have been denied.
Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of the search conducted by every office that responded that it had no records on her and no record of an inquiry by an independent or special counsel. She claims that the offices provided wrong information when they say she has never been of investigatory interest to the FBI and had not been the subject of electronic surveillance. She refuses to accept a response that the office has no such records and than it will not search for records on Mark Rathbun or his parents without a privacy waiver.10 All such responses are attributed to the German Nazi conspiracy. For example, plaintiff asserts that the Pittsburgh office "misinformed Mark Rathbun, his family or their attorneys (sic) or the independent or special counsel having no records on me so that they don't get hold of me as witness and to obstructjustice." Compl. at 20; see also Compl. at 50 (Louisville Field Office, defendant 22). In some instances, a "no records" response provokes an allegation that the office simply did not conduct any search. See, e.g., Compl. at 38 (Phoenix field office, defendant 18) (plaintiff asserts that the requested subpoenas exist and the office is "deliberately withholding them from" her); Compl. at 41 (Cincinnati field office, defendant 19); Compl. at 46-47 (Newark field office, defendant 21).
The Boston office and its related office in Bangor, Maine, defendants 12 and 13, sent plaintiff seven pages relating to L. Ron Hubbard, with excisions of the names of FBI agents who wrote reports, in reliance on Exemption 7(C) of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(C). Plaintiff objects to the excisions on the ground that "if a government employee wants to stay private, he or she should seek employment in the private sector." Compl. at 30. In addition, because plaintiff has been informed that FBI headquarters has more than 600 pages of records on Hubbard, she contends that it is impossible that other offices have no records on him. See, e.g., Compl. at 38 (Phoenix field office, defendant 18). The Cincinnati field office, defendant 19, found records on Hubbard but declined to produce them, referring plaintiff instead to the FBI Headquarters reading room. Plaintiff asserts that "they found German Nazi lies in those records ... that were deliberately wrongfully spread about L. Ron Hubbard to destroy his reputation and life and they don't want me to obtain a copy, so that I can't correct the lies." Compl. at 42. Plaintiff asserts that she has a right to 100 pages free ftom these records and should not be referred to the reading room when she is in Utah.11 Compl. at 42. The Cleveland field office, defendant 20, provided 15 pages relating to Hubbard, also with certain excisions made in reliance on Exemption 7(C). Plaintiff objects that additional records must be available and seeks an in camera inspection to determine whether the exemptions were proper. Compl. at 44. Some offices, for example the Newark field office, defendant 21, the Louisville field office, defendant 22, and the Milwaukee field office, defendant 23, referred plaintiff's request about Hubbard to headquarters. Plaintiff asserts this was a deliberate attempt to delay processing of her request because of the known backlog of FOIA requests at FBI headquarters.
B. The Central Intelligence Agency
Plaintiff's request to the CIA, defendant 49, was for any records generated and received in connection with her prior FOIA requests and appeals, and litigation records relating to a case in the District Court for Utah and the Tenth Circuit. Plaintiff asked that a search be made in several offices at CIA headquarters and also in seven district offices. When she had received no response after 35 days, plaintiff re-mailed the request directly to the Director of the CIA. Finally, on August 14, 2000, Plaintiff mailed the request a third time. This time she added a request for any CIA records on President Dwight Eisenhower, any records relating to a village in Utah named Chattanooga, and any records referring to her "under code name 'Cindy.'" Compl. at 114. Plaintiff had received no response from the CIA by the time she submitted her complaint in this case in October 2000.
C. The Department of the Army
Plaintiff's claim against this defendant relates to a FOIA request she had mailed on October 8, 1999, which had been referred by the Army's FOIA office to the nineteen subdivisions named as defendants.12 Plaintiff's request was for the same records sought from the FBI regarding herself, Mark Rathbun, his family, his attorneys, L. Ron Hubbard, and an independent or special counsel. Plaintiff later mailed to eleven of the offices13 an additional request for information regarding President Eisenhower, Chattanooga, Utah, and records on three of her earlier cases in this District.14
Generally, as with the FBI offices, the Army offices found no responsive records and did not search for records regarding third parties.15 Plaintiff objects that most offices that responded merely advised her that no records had been located, without describing the particulars of the search. E.g., defendant 63, Compl. at 136; defendant 64, Compl. at 137; defendant 66, Compl. at 140. Other offices simply had not responded to the referral from the main FOIA office before the complaint was filed. The Army Medical Command Headquarters, defendant 55, searched for records relating to the Rathbuns, their attorneys, and the independent or special counsel, but found no records. Compl. at 124. When the Office of the Assistant Secretary, Financial Management and Comptroller advised plaintiff that it did not maintain records regarding private citizens except active duty military and civilian employees, plaintiff questioned whether this office discards FOIA requests, subpoenas, and other legal files. Compl. at 139.
The Office of the Engineer Inspector General of the Army Corps of Engineers referred plaintiff's request to the Army Inspector General. Plaintiff alleges that this was done in an attempt to cover up existing records. Moreover, she asserts, the Army Inspector General "is completely lawless office and does not respect any FOIA/PA laws...." Compl. at 129.
Plaintiff's final request was sent on July 24, 2000, to the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. Again, she requested records regarding herself, her litigation cases (the three District of Columbia cases previously mentioned and a case in an unspecified court numbered 95-275-B), L. Ron Hubbard, Chattanooga, Utah, the Rathbuns, and subpoenas from their attorneys or an independent or special counsel. Records Release Officer Nancy Reed responded with the usual request for a privacy waiver from the third parties. Plaintiff claims this was an illegal attempt to refuse to search for the records. She alleges that Reed knows that Rathbun is illegally incarcerated because of the Nazi conspiracy, and it is public knowledge that Hubbard "was officially declared dead in 1986." Compl. at 126. Plaintiff's administrative appeal of this response was unsuccessful. On August 13, 2000, plaintiff requested from this office its records on President Eisenhower. This request was ignored.
In her request for relief, plaintiff asks that each defendant provide a detailed description of the search performed in response to her request, that each defendant search in every records system and office, and, further, that the Courtinvestigate a conspiracy between the federal defendants of this case to deny records to me, which I need to get hold of wrongfully incarcerated Mark. C. Rathbun (de Rothschild).Compl. at 147-48.
[and] investigate if the federal defendants of this case inform Mark C. Rathbun, members of his family, their attorneys, an Independent or Spedial (sic) Counsel wrongfully not knowing of my FOIA/PA requests, appeals and other records, so that they don't get hold of me, so that I can't testify for innocent Mark Rathbun and can't testify as to a German originated, German oriented, German controlled Nazi-conspiracy that has infiltrated the U.S. government to deny good American citizens their rights.
II. The Motion to Dismiss
Defendants essentially contend that plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted because her numerous FOIA requests are based on the fanciful premise that Mark Rathbun is illegally held as part of a Nazi conspiracy. Defendants argue that the allegations that agencies deliberately failed to search for records or purposely concealed records are conclusory and without any "rational facts" to support them. Memorandum in Support Of Motion to Dismiss ("Memorandum") at 11. They point out that the agencies conducted legally adequate searches despite plaintiff's objection that many searches were inadequate because the entity did not search every office and every system of records. See SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1201 (D.C.Cir. 1991). They note that plaintiff is not entitled at the administrative level to a "search declaration" or "search certificate." See Schwarz v. United States Depot of Treasury, 131 F. Supp. 2d 142, 147 (D.D.C. 2000), aff'd, 2001 WL 674636 (D.C. Cir., May 10, 2001), rehearing denied, (D.C. Cir., July 10, 2001). Moreover, they contend that this civil action constitutes abuse of process.
Plaintiff has filed a lengthy opposition to the motion, primarily arguing that the premise of her requests is founded in fact and not fanciful. See Opposition at 19-20.16 She points out that she has filed numerous cases because of the "corruption of so many agencies and their conspirative coordinated actions against" her. Opposition at 5. She asserts that the "hostile, unlawful and unconstitutional motion" was filed because the defense attorneys "know that the agencies did either not search at all or deliberately searched the wrong records or deliberately searched only inadequately and deliberately withheld records from" her. Id.17 She asserts that no search was made for the subpoenas she requested because they are to be illegally withheld from her. Opposition at 6.18 Plaintiff states that she can prove that "the U.S. Government is secretly infiltrated by German Nazi conspiracy, U.S. Governmental employees that 'owe' the Germans their careers within the U.S. Government, because Germans helped them secretly to their positions." Opposition at 7. Had Judge Kennedy (presumably in Schwarz v. United States Depot of Treasury, supra) required the CIA to provide a declaration, he would "finally get to the bottom of [her] kidnaping, by German Nazis, [her] being abused by them, [her] being doughter (sic) of L. Ron Hubbard and granddaughter (sic) of President Eisenhower and married to Mark C. Rathbun (de Rothschild.)" Opposition at 7-8. Plaintiff reiterates that Rathbun "can lose his life behind bars" and the agencies should give her a contact address so she can notify him, his family, or his attorneys of her desire to testify and prove that he was framed and is innocent. Opposition at 8-9. She is entitled to learn where Rathbun is being held, because the place of incarceration of a federal prisoner is known to the FBI and is public information. Opposition at 9. Moreover, the agencies should have provided her with public information about Mark, Claude, and Elizabeth Rathbun. Opposition at 11.
Plaintiff further asserts that individuals who responded to her FOIA requests "acted with criminal purpose in their minds because they dishonestly altered the dates on which they received" her requests. Other FBI employees forged the signatures of the persons whose names were on the letters, in order to conceal their own identities and those of their superiors. Opposition at 12-13. Although search declarations are not required at the administrative level, the agencies would have saved time had they provided them. Opposition at 16-17.
Plaintiff rejects the defendants' argument that she has abused the system by filing frivolous FOIA requests. She refers to an individual named Michael Ravnitzky who she alleges has filed at least 2000 FOIA requests but has not been charged with abusing the system. Plaintiff asserts that she has not filed thousands of administrative appeals, and is not harassing any defendant or any court but merely asking them "to do their jobs." Opposition at 23-24. As to the cases cited by defendants in which frequent filers have been disciplined, plaintiff asserts that "many" of these litigants "were hired to abuse the system by filing indeed frivolous actions so that court opinions can be used by corrupt judges to deny honest litigants rights." Opposition at 23.
III. Legal Analysis
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must accept all well pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See, e.g., Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3rd 418, 421 (D.C. Cir. 1996). A claim may be dismissed only when it is certain "beyond doubt" that there are no sets of facts under which relief could be granted. Conley v. Gibson, supra. Although pro se complaints, in particular, are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the court is not bound to "accept unsupported assertions, unwarranted inferences or sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations." Himmelman v. MCI Communs.Corp., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2000).
This is the fourth of five FOIA complaints that plaintiff has submitted to this Court in the last few years, each seeking records on Mark Rathbun, his family, President Eisenhower, and L. Ron Hubbard, and some in addition requesting information about Rosemarie Marie Bretschneider, a school in a submarine village, the Church of Scientology, and an alleged German Nazi conspiracy infiltrating the government.19 The first case, Schwarz v. United States Department of Treasury, Civil Action 98-2406, named 79 defendants. The exhaustive opinion granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, 131 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D.D.C. 2000), was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 2001 WL 674636 (D.C. Cir,. May 1O, 2001), rehearing denied (D.C. Cir., July 13, 2001).20
A second case, Schwarz v. United States Department of Energy, Civil Action 99-3234, named an additional 72 federal entities, various subdivisions, and many individuals, a total of 807 separate defendants.21 Plaintiff's FOIA requests in that case related to the Rathbuns, their attorneys, Hubbard, an independent or special counsel, Germans, schools in a submarine village in Great Salt Lake, and Rosemarie Bretschneider. That case was dismissed on the ground that it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and was frivolous or malicious. The Court concluded that the complaint was "not based on legally arguable challenges to actions on Plaintiff's FOIA requests. Rather, it [was] based on Plaintiff's misunderstanding of reality and therefore must be dismissed because it both fail[ed] to state a claim on which relief can be granted and [was] frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)." Schwarz v. United States Department of Energy, Civil Action No. 99-3234 (D.D.C. November 5, 2001), aff'd, 2002 WL 1050431 (D.C. Cir., March 25, 2002). In affirming the dismissal, the Court of Appeals stated that "to the extent many aspects of [plaintiff's] complaint 'lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact,' Neitzke v. Williams, 409 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), they were properly dismissed as frivolous."
A third case, Schwarz v. United States General Accounting Office, Civil Action No. 00-369, was dismissed on November 13, 2001. The dismissal also has been affirmed, 2002 WL 1050444 (D.C. Cir., March 29, 2002).22 The most recent case filed by plaintiff in this Court is Schwarz v. United States Depot of Agriculture, et al, Civil Action No. 01-1464. In that case, plaintiff named 3,087 defendants in a complaint of 2,370 pages. In the initial review of the complaint in connection with plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan noted that plaintiff had named "what appears to be every federal department, independent federal agency and office or component thereof and each agency's FOIA officers." Schwarz v. United States Depot of Agriculture, et al, Order filed June 29, 2001, at 3. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and malicious, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff thereafter was enjoined from further filings except under limited circumstances. Both the dismissal and the injunction order have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Schwarz v. Department of Agriculture, Secretary, et al., 2001 WL 1610051 (D.C. Cir., November 23, 2001).
The Court has reviewed the complaint in this case, the motion to dismiss, and plaintiff's response. The premise of plaintiff's FOIA requests is that a German Nazi conspiracy has infiltrated the United States Government, that Mark Rathbun is being held secretly having been falsely convicted, that one purpose of the conspiracy is to prevent plaintiff from locating Rathbun or his parents or attorneys so that she can testify on his behalf, and that an independent or special counsel may be trying unsuccessfully to reach plaintiff to obtain her testimony.23 The Court concludes that this premise is fanciful and has no basis in fact.
The Freedom of Information Act is designed to provide requesters with real information about how the government works. Its admirable purpose is abused when misguided individuals are allowed (in this case, repeatedly) to submit requests to every agency and subdivision of the government, seeking information about an imaginary conspiracy. Thus this case, as were two of plaintiff's previous cases, will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
An appropriate order, signed this day, accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: September 24, 2002
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge
[Notes]1 This office appears to have been named because it is the component of the Department of Justice that denied plaintiff's administrative appeals.
The only proper defendant in a FOIA case is the "agency," in this instance the Department of Justice (for the FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of the Army, as plaintiff has been advised in other cases.
2 Plaintiff provided with her FOIA requests to many offices a declaration dated October 8, 1997, stating that she is Rathbun's wife and "relief witness," that he has been framed by the German Nazi conspiracy, and that the lives of both of them are in danger.
3 Plaintiff alleges that her claims in this case are different from claims made in previous cases against the FBI headquarters, the Department of Justice Office of Information and Privacy, the FBI Criminal Justice Information Service Division, the CIA, and the Secretary and FOIA office of the Department of the Army. Compl. ¶ 5.
4 These offices are defendants 30, 32, 36-41, and 47 in the complaint.
5 Defendants 18, 24-29, 31, and 33-35.
6 These offices are named as defendants 2, 4-17, 19-23, and 42-46.
7 For example, FBI Little Rock, defendant 5. Compl. at 16.
8Plaintiff adds on page 111 of the complaint an additional claim against all listed field offices. The Detroit office had informed plaintiff that they had located records of a case brought by L. Ron Hubbard against the FBI director in this Court, Civil Action No.78-0107. Plaintiff argues that the other offices had not conducted adequate searches because no other offices located this case.
9 Apparently the letter assumed that plaintiff requested information regarding any criminal records relating to her, and asked that she provide a copy of her fingerprints. See Compl. at 113.
10 Plaintiff points out that it is inappropriate to require a privacy waiver for Rathbun and his family because the offices know she needs to locate them before she can obtain privacy waivers. See, e.g., Compl. at 21, 29, 41.
11 Reading rooms provide access to basic agency records that must be made "available for public inspection and copying," either at agency offices or electronically. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). Such records ordinarily cannot be the subject of regular FOIA requests. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).
12 Plaintiff had asked that the request be referred to 74 specific offices. She objects that the FOIA officer, Rose Marie Christensen, referred the request to the Chief Attorney to respond for several of the named offices, and to other offices instead of offices specifically named. See Compl.at 115- 19. Plaintiff asserts that this was done in an attempt to conceal responsive records.
13 See, e.g., Compl. at 120, the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, defendant 52, and Compl. at 122, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, defendant 53.
14 Defendants 53, 54, 55, 60-66, and 69. The cases plaintiff specified are Schwarz v. United States Depot of Treasury, et al, Civil Action No. 98-2406, Schwarz v. United States Depot Of Energy, et al, Civil Action No. 99-3234, and Schwarz v. United States Depot of Agriculture, et al, Civil Action No. 00-1610.
15 The Army Space and Missile Defense Command, for example, told plaintiff that it had searched for and found no records regarding L. Ron Hubbard and Sarah Hubbard Eisenhower/Rathbun, but did not describe a search for records regarding plaintiff as Barbara Schwarz or Schwartz, and did not search for the Rathbuns or their attorneys or the special counsel. See Compl. at 120.
16 Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, entitled "Motion by Plaintiff in Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss," will be cited as "Opposition."
17 Plaintiff later asserts that it "is treason against the United States and a very hard blow against the United States Constitution and national ecurity to consider a case that could very well prove the secret German Nazi infiltration of the U.S. government as no legitimate complaint." Opposition at 21-22. See also Opposition at 35 (defendants are "a disgusting despicable Nazi conspiracy, ordered by the Germans to make it impossible to me to document their infiltration of the U.S. Government and their high crimes committed while having uncontrolled access to criminal officials and judges.").
18 Plaintiff later asserts that it is "rational to conclude that the defendants misinformed the attorneys of Mark Rathbun (de Rothschild) or the attorneys of his family or an independent or special counsel not having any records on me to obstruct justice so that they don't get hold of me as witness, against the German Nazi infiltration of the U.S. Government and as witness to the wrongful incarceration of Mark Rathbun.... I know they are lying to me and lying to them." Opposition at 15-16 (emphasis in original).
19 These five more recent FOIA cases are not, however, plaintiff's only litigation activities. Plaintiff's nine earlier cases filed in this Court are listed in footnote 1 of the Order filed June 29, 2001, in Schwarz v. United States Dep't of Agriculture, Civil Action No. 01-1464. Moreover, she has herself referenced various other federal cases she has brought in, for example, Utah, Maryland, West Virginia, and other locations.
20 The District Court opinion summarizes plaintiff's contentions about her parentage, her relationship with Mark Rathbun, and the alleged connection with President Eisenhower and L. Ron Hubbard. See Schwarz v. United States Department of Treasury, 131 F. Supp. 2d at 145 n.4.
21 That complaint originally named 2183 defendants and was dismissed because it violated Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Docket #3, Order of December 7, 1999.
22 A fourth case still pending, Schwarz v. United States Dep't of Health and Human Servs. et al, Civil Action No. 00-1610, names 465 defendants in a 189 page complaint.
23 Given the number of cases plaintiff has filed in this and other courts, any special counsel would have no difficulty in locating her at her home in Salt Lake City.
In this case plaintiff also seeks information to clear the name of L. Ron Hubbard. She has been directed to FBI headquarters to obtain the approximately 600 pages of responsive records that apparently are located there.